Wednesday, March 19, 2025

Retrospective: The Complete Book of Elves

By the early 1990s, AD&D 2nd Edition was in full swing, and one of its defining features was the proliferation of entries in the Player's Handbook Rules Supplement (PHBR) series, commonly called the Complete books. These were player-focused supplements initially aimed at expanding the options for various classes that were eventually expanded to other topics, including races. The series is mixed bag, with most volumes following in the footsteps of The Complete Fighter’s Handbook – solid and unremarkable. However, a few stand out for how bad they were, The Complete Book of Elves, published in 1993, being my candidate for the worst (feel free to nominate your own in the comments).

Written by Colin McComb, The Complete Book of Elves is, at its core, an expansion of the already-powerful elf race in AD&D. But whereas earlier material presented elves as skilled but balanced adventurers with unique strengths and weaknesses, this book instead leans hard into the idea that elves are just better –smarter, faster, more artistic, more magical, more attuned to nature, and, of course, longer-lived – than virtually every other playable race in the game.

This emphasis is the start of where the book runs into trouble. It doesn’t just provide players with more options for elven characters; it actively reinforces an attitude of elven superiority, sometimes to an absurd degree. Take, for example, this passage:

No elf will ever simply perform a function when he can do it with flair and style. If a human forges a sword, he creates a piece of metal that cuts and slashes. If an elf forges a sword, he creates a masterpiece of balance, beauty, and power.

That's more or less the tone of the entire book. Elves are naturally superior to humans and other races in virtually every way that matters. Their weapons are better, their magic is more refined, their civilization more enlightened, their senses sharper, their emotions deeper. Even their music is better! 

If it were merely a matter of tone, The Complete Book of Elves would simply be remembered as insufferable. However, the book follows suit with its rules expansions as well and this, in my opinion, is where it reaches a new level of egregiousness. The new elven kits, which are supposed to offer distinct roleplaying options, tend to be overloaded with benefits and underweighted on drawbacks. The bladesinger, for instance, is a combat-ready spellcaster with virtually no downside beyond its limitation to one weapon. The wilderness runner is an elf so in tune with nature that he can literally run faster than a horse. Even some of the purported elven disadvantages, like the elves' reluctance to use heavy armor, are framed as virtues rather than limitations.

It’s not as if the book is poorly writtenMcComb has a decent grasp of language and some of the information he presents, particularly concerning elven philosophy and their approach to magic, is interesting. However, it is so unbalanced in its portrayal of elves that it feels almost like a work of in-game propaganda rather than a neutral sourcebook. I don't think that was McComb's intention, but, even if it were, I think he went a bit overboard in his approach. I distinctly recall that, during the '90s, The Complete Book of Elves was the butt of frequent jokes by all but the most dedicated elf fanboys. In my local group, we referred to it as "The Complete Book of Gods," because of its overpowered kits and supercilious prose.

Despite this, The Complete Book of Elves still holds some interest today, if only from a historical perspective. It's an artifact of a time when AD&D was leaning much more heavily into the "story" or "narrative" approach that was pioneered almost a decade earlier in Dragonlance. The book has less concern for mechanical balance than it does for presenting a nonhuman race in sufficient detail for maximum player immersion. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing – I'm a longtime fan of Roger E. Moore's "Point of View" series in Dragon, for example – but I can't help but feel as the racial Complete books, especially this one, go too far in this direction. 

Ultimately, I think The Complete Book of Elves serves as an object lesson in the dangers of overindulging a single race or concept in a game. I prefer it when a supplement expands options, not elevates one choice as obviously better than all the others. Based on my undoubtedly biased experience, this book simply exacerbated an existing problem: players already drawn to elves didn’t need more reasons to see them as superior. It's a flawed and indulgent book, worth a read only if you want a window into some of the worst tendencies of TSR and AD&D during the early to mid-1990s. 

27 comments:

  1. I wonder if the writers of the Lord of the Rings & Hobbit movies had this book in mind when writing Legolas.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's the unofficial "Let's Play the Silmarillion" supplement...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Never looked at the book, let alone the rest of the race ones. I stuck with the ones for the four core classes, plus the humanoids one.

    Why I never looked at it was probably "what can this provide over what I already know about elves?" Which the answer is "nothing". This book is a good example of power gaming.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Jim Hodges---
    2e was the era of shoddy products and bad management. The concepts laid out here oversimplify an entire species and take away a lot of player discretion.
    Elves were indistinguishable from fairies under 2e. Glad I was not introduced to D&D in this stage of its history, but my brother was. (Hint: he burned out fast and no longer plays.)

    ReplyDelete
  5. There must be something about pointed ears that makes writers want to lavish gifts upon the bearer.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This gives me further justification (as if any more was needed) to exclude bladesingers from games of all editions going forward.

    ReplyDelete
  7. As part of the kickstarter for the meh Planescape: Torment spiritual successor they had Colin apologize for writing this.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwDWx1cAqP4

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Heheh, that was great! I have absolutely no experience and practically zip knowledge of 2nd Edition. He was exactly my age in 92 and I'm not sure I would have done better! I had a pretty high opinion of elves when I was playing in the early 80s. I'm sure there are people that wax nostalgically over the Book of Elves the way I look at 79-83 era modules.

      Delete
  8. And one wonders why Talislanta leaned so hard on "And no elves!" (and later "Still no elves!"). In the later 80s, I took a turn against elves and started making them not so "better than humans". I don't allow elves in my RQ campaign (especially after making the mistake of letting a player play one). Of course these days, using Rob Conley's Majestic Fantasy Reals, elves are better than humans, but come with societal balances (not that it's impacting the elf in my Cold Iron Blackmarsh Adventures campaign much).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I for one am pretty fond of RQ elves -- spiteful pine trees -- but looking back I _do_ have to admit there were few/no PC Aldyrami in games I can remember. Only NPC ones that ended up in the bellies of our ((mostly) vegetarian) troll party leader. I think you're on to something.

      Delete
    2. Oh, I like RQ elves, but their singularly high INT, the most important attribute, is pretty unbalancing. My player rolled an almost perfect elf that had +40% for most ability bonuses. It took one adventure for his character to qualify for Rune Priest, and a few more to qualify for Rune Lord.

      Back in the mid-80s I also reconsidered elves in general in RPGs. There was a tendency to make elves the best magic users, so all PC magic users were elves...

      Delete
    3. Sheesh. Not only have I missed out on a half-century of D&D lore and experience, now I'm realizing I missed out on parts of RQ/Glorantha too ;) I truly didn't remember that all.

      But I suspect TrollPak warped my (our) young brains so that the other Elder Races just never appealed much as player options, so elfish supremacy didn't come up!

      Delete
  9. It's not as if IRL Humans aren't the primary example of all the traits amplified into these elves.

    The elves are the "ideal" Enlightenment era human of rationalism and eco-fascism ("everything is in balance"). They're the mythic Eugenic Nazi of Fantasy.

    Perfect to be sabotaged, undermined and destroyed in a campaign.

    Players using them? Create new hard counters. NPC Romantics modeled after William Blake, Shelley, the Dionysian Nietzsche, Stirner...

    Im-puritan Chaos "worshippers" who don't see Nature as perceived harmony as the elves do but as eruptions of change, mutation and monstrosity

    People are letting D&D do all the thinking for them and get upset when things are consistent. There's plenty here to use on both sides if you really want to see them as "over powered Enlightenment era humans that transcend the 'Nasty, Brutish and Short' lifespan of lower 'races' with pointy ears."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jim Hodges---
      I can't saying find much to agree with in this post. It's less dark than dim.

      Delete
  10. “Elves are wonderful. They provoke wonder.
    Elves are marvellous. They cause marvels.
    Elves are fantastic. They create fantasies.
    Elves are glamorous. They project glamour.
    Elves are enchanting. They weave enchantment.
    Elves are terrific. They beget terror.
    The thing about words is that meanings can twist just like a snake, and if you want to find snakes look for them behind words that have changed their meaning.
    No one ever said elves are nice.
    Elves are bad.”
    ― Terry Pratchett, Lords and Ladies

    ReplyDelete
  11. A big reason I enjoy following Grognardia is how often it affirms my prejudices and validates my choices and taste. I feel privileged to have totally missed this, for example -- I don't think I ever even heard about this book, the series it belonged to, or reactions to it, during its days in the sun. Don't get me wrong, I really enjoy learning about an unfamiliar side of gaming history and gamer experiences, a really huge side apparently, and appreciating the big picture better. That's the main thing. I just _also_ enjoy the sensation of smug relief I get from reading this blog.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Crud -- forgot the second paragraph:

    "...AD&D was leaning much more heavily into the 'story' or 'narrative' approach..."

    Is this really about storytelling or narrativism(tm)? To me it comes across more as leaning into wish-fulfillment and ego stroking. I mean, I don't see how this approach has any necessary influence on how scenarios/campaigns are structured and operate, or how players engage with shaping the 'narrative'. It's just another hack of the limbic system: qualitative ('my eyes are so violet and full of starlight!') rather than quantitative ('my sword is +3, +5 vs ugly people') munchkinism.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Had it; read it; stole the good bits and nerfed or disallowed the rest. Same as today.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I wonder how much of this, really, is just "giving the players what they want" taken to absurd excess. In the group I played with in the early 90s, it was just taken as obvious, unquestioned fact that elves were the best. Our referee used to get rid of the (few) limitations the PHB placed on them just to facilitate a more-elves experience. Level limits? Not for elves. Elf paladins? Sure, why not! I distinctly recall how *strongly* I was encouraged to make all of my characters elves, too.

    I was a kid, and didn't know any better, so I just figured "yup, cool, elves are the best. Got it." I wonder if this experience was widespread and led to this sort of weird supplement... which, thankfully, came out well after my last session with that group. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Elves Are Just Better": there are interesting ways you could approach that. It's probably difficult to do so in an rpg like AD&D2, but it's not devoid of potential as a concept.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I never read the handbook, but it seems that perhaps Mr McComb leaned heavily into Tolkien’s vision of elves? In that the elves of Middle Earth were nearly divine, immortal beings. They were better than humans, in nearly every regard.
    Being a huge Tolkien fan, I’ve had to catch myself many times leaning into this take on elves, in my own games & settings. Unless they’re going to exist solely as NPC’s, you can’t present them as immortal, otherworldly beings. They can be long-lived, they can be good with bows, or whatever, maybe good at mixing fighting and magic, but they must be “normal” creatures (relative, considering the genre).
    I’m not advocating for precisely balanced races, classes, etc, but if you present one playable race as miles better than the others, you better be prepared to play Dungeons & Elves…

    ReplyDelete
  17. I use to let my players use it for elves in AD&D, but to balance that I always allowed players playing other PC race other options to expand their choices so it compared to the options for elven players.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "All right, before we get to session 0, we're here for Pre Session 0, where the DM and players negotiate which books are allowed. Attorney for the players, are you ready to present your case?"

    "Yes, your honor. We feel that Bladesingers are essential to realizing our character conception."

    "Objection, balance."

    "Referring to DM's exhibit 1, Forbidden Splatbooks..."

    Seems like towards the end of its life, this is how 2e campaigns went.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The author's take is not how I remembered this book. It was one of my favorites; not for the admittedly overpowered kits like Bladesinger, but for the flavor text which introduced things like reverie, instead of sleep, which made Elves seem more alien and unique (rather than just being humans with pointy ears.) I donated mine to a charity auction, but I remember this book fondly.

    ReplyDelete